Read a conversation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: it reads the local Teams cache only, not the full server archive, and explains the story order and pagination mechanisms. This provides complete transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: first states purpose and order, second explains targeting and pagination, third notes the cache limitation. No unnecessary words, well-organized for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: targeting, pagination, ordering, and cache limitation. It could mention the limit default (in schema) or time filtering, but is sufficiently complete for a read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71% (some parameters lack descriptions like 'since' and 'until'). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining targeting by handle/substring, pagination with cursor, and centering with around. It compensates for missing schema details but doesn't explicitly cover all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'one conversation's messages'. It specifies the story order (oldest→newest) and how to target by handle or substring, distinguishing it from siblings like list_conversations or search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to use the tool: target by handle or substring, page back with cursor, center with around. It implies usage for reading a full conversation in order, but lacks explicit comparison to siblings like search or when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.